EXAMPLE #3... THE HORRIFICALLY IRONIC AND HYPOCRITICAL.
Guess what irresponsible Defeatocrat made these statements:
"Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long [our troops] will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
(Continued from Part 2) Yes, it was the man who stood before a “Mission Accomplished” sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, back in ‘03.
All right, he said these things a few years earlier. It was a different war and a different president. Bush made the comments quoted above during the brief campaign by NATO forces to expel Serbian forces from Kosovo and Bosnia, led by President Bill Clinton and Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark. Without the loss of a single US life, that ultimately brought about the downfall of Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, who died last year while being tried for war crimes.
Using diametrically opposite doctrines that avoided every mistake of Vietnam (instead of repeating them all) Clinton-Clark respected and gathered allies, respected military professionals, respected civilian populations, while applying fierce but targeted force that accomplished every objective.
Toppling a brutal dictator,
Bringing peace to an entire region,
Bringing democracy to an entire region,
Increasing our influence in the world and even our popularity in muslim lands,
Without allowing our alliances to suffer...
...or our readiness...
...or our budget...
...or our social cohesion...
...or even losing a single American life...
...while bringing an end to tyranny on the European continent, for the first time in 4,000 years. One of the most significant foreign policy triumphs in all of history.
Indeed, then-candidate George W. Bush was RIGHT to speak of timetables and exit strategies, even for a campaign that accomplished so much, so quickly, at so little cost. (Go over that list of Balkans Campaign accomplishments and compare it to Iraq. Well, one out of ten ain’t...bad?)
A side note - Clinton-Clark applied the same military doctrines to the war plan for Afghanistan, a plan which was already on the shelves, ready to be taken down, when George W. Bush suddenly had to act, days after 9/11. Lacking time to say anything but “Go!” Bush had to unleash a scenario that had been crafted by professionals, in dispatching that quick-effective slash at the Taliban.
One need look no farther in order to explain the difference between stunning competence that we displayed in Afghanistan (at least the first couple of years) and our noxiously vile/incompetent adventure in Iraq, where outrageous graft and meddling by clueless politicians has shoved our military near the breaking point.
(Dems really should use phrases like “meddling in military affairs by clueless, draft-dodging politicians.” It slices through the hypocrisy of a generation of right wing jerks who used exactly that phrase to explain the loss of Vietnam.)
Oh, about that brazen bragging, back in 2003 -- aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln? Let me quote Russ Daggatt, for concise and sharp gutting:
As you may recall, when the "Mission Accomplished" banner later proved to be an embarrassment, Bush tried to blame it on the ship's crew, claiming that the White House had nothing to do with it.
At a news conference on October 28, 2003, Bush said that the sign, "of course, was put up by the members of the USS Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way."
Later, the White House admitted that, in fact, they had the banner made up for the occasion. Typical of Bush to lie, evade responsibility and use those serving in the military as mere props to serve his own political agenda.]
Oh, when the sign was raised, we had lost 139 people in Iraq. On May1, 2007 the figure was 3,351.
“Accomplished.” Oh, yes, these guys - (the same ones who coddled Saddam for twenty years, then slapped his wrist in 1991) - have a right to preach about “judgement” and competence to “command.”
And now a self-serving but called-for query to you all.
Was I not the first person you heard raise this issue? That the Bushites are destroying US military readiness, waging all out war against the professional officer corps, and hollowing out our nation’s resiliency in challenging times? (Hint: I’ve been saying it since early 2004.)
Well, even worse has been the plight of the corps of non-commissioned officers... the sergeants etc who keep everything working.
Washington - Thousands more mid level enlisted soldiers are leaving the Army than in each of the past two years, forcing the service to increase its use of pay-to-stay programs and find other ways to keep GIs in the fold.
Four years into the fight in Iraq, the Army continues to be successful in retaining enough soldiers overall – "a miracle" to some observers, because the war has lasted so long, though at cost of increased bonuses and other inducements. But that success masks a growing problem within the ranks: Fewer mid-grade sergeants are opting to stay in the Army as many face yet another deployment to Iraq – and, more important, Army officials say, less time at home.
While a reenlistment shortfall in any Army group is cause for concern, many consider the declining rate among mid-grade sergeants to be a sign of potential bigger reenlistment problems for the Army down the line. In addition, the fact that more mid-level soldiers are leaving could have a long-term impact on the Army's ability to grow future leaders.
Why, oh why, are the dems to stupid to recognize this as an issue? THE issue?
The war being waged by a clan of super-empowered, spoiled brat amateurs, against professionalism of all kinds, at all levels - including the civil service and intelligence community and law enforcement, as well as the much beleaguered United States Officer Corps.
==Continue to Part 4